§ 4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following question of which I have given them private notice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the Congress Resolution reported in The Times of Monday last, March 10, pro- 358 posing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Government of India Act, that the Statutory Powers and duties of the Viceroy should be abrogated, His Majesty's Government are giving any, and if so what, instructions to the new Viceroy as to the attitude to be adopted to such proposals.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETRICKLAWRENCE)My Lords, as was pointed out in the recent White Paper, inevitably, as the process of transfer of authority proceeds, it will be progressively more difficult to carry out to the letter all the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. This situation was, of course, foreseen at the time of the visit of the Cabinet Mission to India last year, and was the subject of discussion and correspondence with the Indian leaders. In his letter of May 3o last to the President of the Congress Party, the Viceroy made it clear that the Interim Government would not have the same powers, as a Dominion Government, since the whole constitutional position was entirely different. He said, however, that His Majesty's Government would treat the Interim Government with the same full consultation and consideration as a Dominion Government, and would give it the greatest possible freedom, in the exercise of the day-to-day administration of the country. This statement, which was laid before Parliament many months ago, still remains the position. Naturally the matter has been fully discussed with the Viceroy-designate as to how best the situation can be handled.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I should like, if I may, to ask the Secretary of State for India one further question for the purpose of elucidation. Is the House to understand from his answer that there is no alteration in the position envisaged in the White Paper, under which, if an agreed Constitution had not been worked out: by a fully representative Assembly before June, 1948, the decision as to whom the power of central government should be handed over on the due date remains with His Majesty's Government here?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think the situation is as set out in the White Paper.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, might I ask this question bearing on what the 359 Secretary of State has just said? The noble Lord has referred to paragraph II of the White Paper which, as he has reminded us, says that it will become progressively more difficult to carry out to the letter all the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. The question I should like to ask is: Does he consider that the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, which, by Statute, throw a personal responsibility upon the Viceroy in the discharge of his special responsibilities to minorities, to civil servants, and in regard to some other matters, arc provisions which may be dispensed with because it would merely be brushing aside the letter of the Statute; or do they remain part of the duty of the new Viceroy until there is a change in the law?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think the position is quite clear. The Statute, of course, remains, but I think the noble and learned Viscount will recognize that in the progress towards self-government there are changes which are made by convention. I think he will remember that in the famous Simon Report, with which we are all familiar, that matter was referred to, and something of this sort was said: that constitutional progress should be the outcome of the practical experience and progress of the self-governing parts of the British Empire, and would be dependent on conventions, rather than on changes made at intervals in the formal language of Acts of Parliament. Therefore I am not ruling out the possibility of conventions, but it is not proposed to change the main Act until the time comes when a formal proposal is made to Parliament to that effect.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI am greatly obliged, but the noble Lord has really not quite understood my question. I certainly would agree that conventions may have to be established, so long as they are not in breach of the law. What I wanted to ask was a perfectly simple and specific question with regard to the responsibilities of the Viceroy. Does not the noble Lord agree that the Viceroy has statutory duties, and can these duties be set aside by what is called a convention?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think I have made it quite clear in my original statement. I do not think I can add to it.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEIt is a very important point. We have all read this Resolution of Congress, and no doubt the Secretary of State has also read it. It is clear that what is envisaged there is that the Interim Government should attain immediately the status of a Dominion Government. That would mean that with regard to the future of the country all power would be immediately transferred from the Viceroy to the new Dominion Government. Do His Majesty's Government accept that position, which appears to us to be a complete breach of the meaning of Article 10 of the White Paper?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think I have made that perfectly clear in my original answer, and I believe that when the noble Lord reads it he will see it is quite clear. What I have said is:
In his letter of May 30 last to the President of the Congress Party, the Viceroy made it clear that the Interim Government would not have the same powers as a Dominion Government, since the whole constitutional position was entirely different….Later on I said:This statement, which was laid before Parliament many months ago still remains the position.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI wonder if I may ask the Secretary of State one more question. Could he give us an assurance that this country and Parliament will be consulted before any binding commitment is reached with regard to the future of India? I think that is a perfectly clear and simple question.
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCENo commitment can have final force until it is laid before Parliament and receives the sanction of Parliament. The usual constitutional procedure would be followed.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThere is a little more to it than that. Suppose that the Government, without informing Parliament, were to enter into a private commitment with the Interim Government, or with the Congress Party, or whoever it might be, and tell Parliament afterwards, then clearly Parliament would not be in a position to intervene effectively. What I am asking is this: If there are any developments, if there are any proposals which the Government think might be acceptable, before they enter into any commitment themselves, whatever the 361 situation is, will they inform, and if possible consult, Parliament?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEParliament will have to be consulted at the appropriate time. I do not think I can answer a hypothetical question of that kind until the position arises.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMay I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible for the reserve powers of the Governor-General and of the Provincial Governors to be abrogated without an amendment of the Government of India Act, 1935?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEI think I have made that position clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMay I take it from the answers of the Secretary of State that the two famous conditions—previous agreement between the Parties and the protection of minorities—form part of the instructions of the Viceroy-Elect?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEWe had a debate on this question, and I think we dealt with all that.
§ LORD HAILEYMay I ask the Secretary of State one simple question? Taking it for granted that the statutory powers and responsibility of the Viceroy will remain as before, are we to understand that His Majesty's Government will not give him any instructions not to discharge those duties?
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEThat seems to be rather a complicated question. Obviously he can receive no instructions contrary to the provisions laid down.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONContrary to the law.